5th Cir. Pattern Jury Instr. (Civil) 10.5

In addition to [his/her] claims against [officers/

officials], Plaintiff [name] is suing [specify municipality

sued]. A [city/county] is not liable for the actions of its

employees unless the constitutional violation was

caused by a [city/county] policy or custom.

1

To prevail on [his/her] claim against the [city/

county], Plaintiff [name] must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that:

1. an official policy or custom existed;

2. a policymaker for the [city/county] knew or

should have known about the policy or custom;

2

3. the policymaker was deliberately indifferent;

and

4. the policy or custom was the moving force leading to the constitutional violation.

A “policy” can be a policy statement, ordinance,

regulation, or decision officially adopted and promulgated by the [city/county]’s officers.

3

A “custom” is a persistent, widespread practice of

[city/county] officials or employees that, although not

formally adopted, is so common and well-settled that it

fairly represents [city/county] policy. But to show a

custom, Plaintiff [name] must prove that either the

[city/county]’s governing body or some official with

1Pineda v. City of Houston , 291 F .3d 325, 328 (5th Cir. 2002).

2Policymaker status is a question of law. See, e.g. , Tharling v. City of

Port Lavaca , 329 F .3d 422, 427 (5th Cir. 2003).

3Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. , 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978).